Laura Ingram asks Mitch Daniels about his call for a moratorium on social issues, and he doubles down on it, though changing from "truce" to "stand mute" on them for a while:
If you don't accept that we face a republic-threatening issue in terms of the debt--and again I would love to conclude one day that I was overreacting--but that threatens every one of us whatever our views on these other questions.
I would like to think that fixing it and saving our kids future could be a unifying moment for our country and we wouldn't stop our disagreements or our passionate belief in these other questions, we just sort of mute them for a little while, while we try to come together on the thing that menaces us all."
That drew this reaction at National Review's The Corner blog:
No one would deny that this is a time when we should be focusing on the grave fiscal problems that confront our country after decades of reckless spending and avoidance of the problems with our entitlement system. Few people are as well suited to lead in such a time as Mitch Daniels. But our political system does more than one thing at a time. Daniels seems to be asserting the priority of the economic and fiscal issues, but should he not acknowledge the continuing existence and importance of the social issues alongside them, and indeed the deep and abiding connection between the two?
That will be the trickiest part of the primary process for Republicans, won't it? How do they stress the overriding importance of economic issues without slighting the social issues important to many in the base?
Comments
Leo, you are so correct in identifying how to stress the fact that focusing on the "financial survival of a nation/future" v "individual" is going to be very difficult.
Do we let 44 million drag down the other 286 million? Many will say I dislike old people, but the fact remains that the old now were once young and they knew the problems we faced, but failed to act. This led to continual deficits since 1958 and now a national debt of over $14 Trillion. They had a fiduciary responsibility to vote for representatives who could just say no, but did not. Instead the supported people to lobby congress to not correct Social Security or Medicare's financial errors, but in fact lobbied for more such as the Medicare Rx drug plan.
The blame can also be placed on my generation for not voting to counter the seniors since 1974. Now my generation is going to want their entitlements, even though they complained for decades that it would not be there. The boomers outnumber their parents and the children of the boomers out number the boomer themselves.
Those potential voters under age 46 outnumber all other voters combined. It is up to our children to do what my generation and my parents generation were afraid to do, VOTE.
It is time to just say no. It is not that hard. Yes, individuals will feel the pain. However, is it better to continue kicking the can down the road until it crushes everyone?
"But our political system does more than one thing at a time." is the root cause behind our mess. They are not focusing on the big problems and continue to make new problems. Stop all new legislation and focus on the top 5 budget items and slash them. Then focus on the next five budget items and slash them. We are sinking and instead of using a tablespoon to bail out the titanic, we need a 1,000, 22,000 gpm pumps running now.
Mitch has already made the political calculation that the social conservatives will be backing others in the 2012 primary who don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination, so why should he squander any precious political capital on them at this point? Once he secures the nomination, they'll be courting him and not the other way around. I'd say he's doing a brilliant job of not letting the party's rump wag the dog, which is as it should be.